I know every body is thinking coyote hunting yet, but I'm getting the itch for a groundhog rifle.
I have 223 dies and brass from a Handi rifle I used to have, but never really learned to like. But I think the 223 in a savage with 1-9 twist would be the berries for groundhogs that I couldnt reach with my 22wmr and 17HMR. (I'm thinking maybe trying heavy bullets for deer someday)
Some folks say I'm nuts not to go with a 22-250 so I dont get "crawlers" past 250 yds.
Am I really going to see that much difference in the 22-250? I'm thinking the 22-250 is going to be louder and I already have dies for the 223.
And where would the 204 ruger fit in as far as effective range? And could I use my stash of 223 brass to make 204 shells?
I have a 257 roberts and even use my 30-06 loaded with 125 speer tnt for the long stuff, and that works well, but don't care for the recoil all the time.
thanks

You'll be hearin' alot of different ideas on this one.....not a bad thing, but many opinions.

My feelings.........a .223 is cheaper to shoot, considerably less recoil than the 22-250 and "crawlers" can happen at 50 yards......not the cartridges fault. Using the improper bullet can also get those results even with fairly good placement. I've found that 50gr. V-Max's are both very explosive and accurate. Placement is again important, but these V-Max's are a bit forgiving in that regard, not to the varmint however.

You've got the dies already, sounds like you may have ample targets (groundhogs)so an overall hunt will be cheaper and less abusive all around (not that the 22-250 is known for alot of recoil, but more than a .223, for sure). The 22-250 will reach out further than the .223, but only if you plan to consistently attempt shots from 375/400 on out........which won't likely be the majority of your shooting distances.

Sold my very much cherished and tuned 22-250 this last year for the very reasons I'm sharing with you here. When on previous prairie dog hunts, the recoil/muzzle jump was just enough to not allow me to see my hits/misses, which is the whole idea of this type of shooting. Tough to work your way into a 'dog at really long distances when you can't see where you're hittin'. And when you do make contact at whatever range, the results are totally worth viewing....IMHO.

As for the .204, can't speak to that as I don't own one, but my buddy does and he has had alot of fun and success with his. I don't use either the .223 or 22-250 for deer huntin', but others no doubt have, so I'll leave those suggestions and experiences for them to share.

Good luck....probably not a bad choice in the bunch, just some better than others......you get to sort that out.

.223 is damned tough to beat at it's own game.

The .22-250 is a bunch louder, and really only makes the difference when going long regularly.

The .223, inside 400, is near impossible to beat.

Trust me, I don't even like the .223 (prefer the .221 Fireball), and still can't keep myself from picking up the .223. Just 'cause it's that good at what it does.

I think the .223 is the way to go.

for Pdogs the 204 of a blast.

Spot

I have a 204, 4 223s, and 5 22-250s. For pdogs, I like the 204 if the wind isn't blowing too hard, but it is hard to beat a good 223 out to 300+/- yards.

Back in 10/07 I helped a guy get an economy model Stevens 200 in 223 zeroed and even with a Bushnell Sportview 3-9x he was shooting close to MOA groups with factory ammo and an untuned rifle.

If you're going to shoot heavier bullets, 60 grains +, it might be worth having the greater case capacity of the 22-250 to work with, but (again) the 223 works great with 50 and 55 grain bullets, so there you are. Since you have a 257 Roberts and a 30-06 to shoot deer with, maybe buying a 223 as a dedicated varmint rifle would be a good way to go.

Jeff

I like the .22-250. Nothing wrong with having a little bigger hammer....

I've been shooting a 204 for a couple years. I have several 223's, a swift, and all manner of 6mm's, but I don't have a 22-250. My groundhog hunting partner has a couple 22-250's.
Since getting the 204, the 223's haven't seen the light of day for groundhogs. The 204 shoots like a laser, compared to the 223's, and without the recoil of the 22-250's or the swift. You can see your hits with the 204, and with 40 grain bullets and reasonable shot placement, you won't have many crawlers out to 400 yards. The 204 burns less powder than the 22-250, and should be easier on barrels and with less noise,too.
I'm having so much fun with the 204 that the swift only comes out when the shot is well over 400 yards! Over 80 dead groundhogs taken with the 204 last year can't be wrong!
F1

+1

nothing wrong with a big hammer, but till you swing it 200to 300 times a day a 223 will still beat a 250 all day long. I have been shooting pds for a long time and nothing beats a 223 for economy and efficiency. But for effect well there are better for effect. Go with what you can afford and what is practical. Nothing wrong with going with the crowd. HAPPY HUNTING

But shooting 'chucks and pdogs are pretty different scenarios. When you shoot 'pdogs, you expect to shoot a couple hundred rounds per day. When you shoot 'chucks, you're shooting a lot fewer rounds per day. Even back in the late 1960s when few people hunted varmints seriously and I was hunting in MA, NH, NY, PA, and VT with my Father's crew of uber serious 'chuck hunters, I doubt that the group, as a whole, ever shot more than 300 rounds per day.

Jeff

thanks everybody for all the replies.
You've gone over a lot of the points that have been running through my head on this. I guess what it comes down to is this:
I know the 22-250 is going to do what I am looking for, no doubts.300-350 yds will do everything I need.
The question is really, can I do it with less noise, and also being able to spot my own shots with a sporter weight rifle is an issue. remember, if I have to, the 30-06 is there if I really need it.
The 223 is attractive because I have dies and brass, and its a lot easier to find a used rifle in 223 than 204.

1 deuce, your comments on the 204 are very interesting, I have had doubts that the 204 would be effective that far out on groundhogs. Of course I had doubts about the 17 hmr on groundhogs and learned it works better that it has any right to.
Any one else have experience with 204 on ground hogs? If it works well out to 350 yds I may seriously consider going that route.
Thanks for all the 223 comments too. That still is my first choice right now, just not sure how far I can push a 223.The Handi-rifle was never accurate enough to find out.
Dave

There's no way the .204, the .223, or the .22-250 WON'T work on groundhogs to 350. I regularly take groundhogs at that distance or a little further with a .221 Fireball; less powerful (and less noisy) than any of the three you are considering.

You can push a .223 on groundhogs further than 350, and likely further than you can reasonably shoot. Load 40 to 50 gr. V-Maxes or NBTs, and start shootin' ground griz to your hearts content.

Heck, whichever one puts the biggest stupid looking grin on your mug!! I must admit to being slightly amused seeing the guys talk about recoil in the 22-250. I been shooting my buffalo gun too much as my 22-250 feels like a 22 long rifle by comparison.

well ok eviltwin, point taken, maybe I'm just trying to talk myself into the 223.
They all gotta kick a lot less than the 30-06

I have two 22-250's a TAC 20, 3 .223's and 2 .222's. Having said that the 22-250's never go calling coyotes. It's always one of the others.

Considering ET's comment on 22-250's recoil, I agree the felt recoil is nil. The 22-250 does, however, have sufficient recoil to not allow you to spot your own hits, unless you have a muzzle brake and/or a very heavy rifle!
Sean's right, you can kill groundhogs farther than 350 with all three cartridges in question. I've killed a couple this past summer at over 500 with the 204, but I've had a couple crawlers at ranges over 375 that I probably would not have had with the swift, or a 6mm. The difficulty with the 223 is hitting your target at extended ranges. It's greater trajectory curve makes range estimation much more critical, than with the 204 or 22-250. Remember too, that because the 223 starts slower, with a lower BC, that it will run out of gas quicker at the longer ranges than the 204 with a 39 or 40 grain bullet.
In summary: The 204 will shoot as flat, or flatter than the 22-250, with less noise, and you can spot your own hits. The 40 grain 20 caliber bullet will hit the target with less authority than the 55 grain 22 caliber bullet, but you won't see it happen.
As for the 223, compared to the other two, it's ok if you like playing the lob..... and you might see some of your hits.
Buy all three!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1D

Have several of all three mentioned, and I use a 223 by far the most.

If you want a reall winner build a fast twist 223AI, they IMO are the king of the ring.

I am a 250 man. If I am hunting for furr though will drop down to 17 and sometimes the 204. For contests and dropping things dead I always go with the 250

1 duece, your building a good case for the 204, in my opinion. I hunt groundhogs alone mostly and seeing the bullet strike is a big plus, one reason I love the 17 hmr. I picked up a old 17-223 last year with that very thing in mind, but the thing weighs 15lb but I walk a lot, so it never went out again. Live and learn I guess.


I could rebarrel that to 204, but it has a big Fajen target stock, and I was hoping for something lighter. It sounds like the 204 would work great, with little muzzle jump, in a standard sporter weight rifle. (I wont say recoil in reference to a 22 cal again!)


For all its capability somehow the 22-250 isn't really appealing to me at this point.

I have a few months before summer, so I'll print this thread out and mull over every bodies comments for a little.I'll probably change my mind 10 times before I buy anyway.

Well thanks again everybody for all the input

22-250 AI all the way

I really love my .204 Ruger. I would let it sleep in bed with me if the wife would let me. One problem is that I do much of my coyote hunting on the east side of the Sierra Nevada along the Highway 395 corridor from Bridgeport to the Nevada border. Wind can absolutely howl on many days and it blows the little .20 cal bullet all over. From a practical point of view, it's hard to beat a .223. Lots of choices in loaded ammo, surplus ammo for massive blasting desert trips etc.

Well, being in the east, you don't have the high rate of fire, at which the 223 is superior to both the 22250 and the 204.
Also being in the east, you have the issue of noise. There are well-established "reduced" loads for the 223 using 2400 and Blue Dot, which nonetheless clip along at 3200 FPS. Hornet on Steroids, basically, with excellent accuracy. Out west, we use them for gophers which are usually a smaller and shorter range scenario.
I have done reduced loads for my 22BR, so I suspect you could do the same for the 22250.
I have done some work with a 204 and it's on its second barrel with a new custom chamber...the first simply would NOT shoot and the second still doesn't make me too happy. Recoil is minimal, you can spot your hits AND your misses, but it barks pretty good, as well as running pretty hot compared to a 223. It's like having a 223 AI full-house load stuffed in a smaller hole.
Brass availability sucked for a long time, as well. If I ever do a 20 for myself, I'll go either Tactical or on the Fireball case version.
The 22250 doesn't float my boat. I've worked up three rifles for friends, all shoot pretty well. I suppose it feeds better than a BR, it is tractable and accurate, but again, she's loud and she runs warm.
I would heartily recommend going the Savage route in 223. I got a 10 FP a few years ago, bought the Sharp trigger, and basically learned to shoot well with it. Nothing fancy, but a fine, utilitarian rifle. You might have to open the magazine to get your handloads up to the lands, but other than that, you should be good to go. You have bullets from 35 grains all the way up to 68 (for a 1-9) and all of them are good for something. I have good loads at 40, 50, 55, and 60 grains, the 60s are the most accurate for me.
If you wind up hating the 223, you can either go with an aftermarket barrel in one of the other cals, a new bolt head is reasonably priced as well if you go other than the 378 (?) case head size.
So good luck.

Ruger438: Don't let ANYONE tell you there is something a 223 Remington will do that a 204 Ruger won't do better in the Varminting arena!
I know better!
I have shot some huge Rock Chucks with both calibers and the 204 Ruger is every bit as lethal on them as the 223 Remington - in fact for complete cessation of movement I give the edge to the 204 Ruger!
I am the proud owner of 9 Varmint guns in caliber 223 Remington and have been shooting this caliber since "day one"!
I also have 4 Varmint guns in 204 Ruger and have been putting these Rifles through their paces for nye on 4 years now and the 204 Ruger is rated above, to head and shoulders above, the 223 in performance categories like lethality, flatness of trajectory, lack of recoil, wind bucking ability and efficiency! AND, I am leaning towards declaring the 204 Ruger cartridge as also being slightly more "inherently" accurate than the 223 a little more proof is needed here for this item though!
And thats saying something! As the 223 is a splendid round.
There are other issues that have me giving the kudos to the 204 Ruger above the 223 - I better not mention them all as I have no declarative first hand proof yet just strong indications of these things like brass life and barrel life being similar or neck and neck between the two!
The 22-250 is a dandy round and I presently shoot 5 of them - but again for all around usage the 204 is superior to this round as well!
And thats saying something! As the 22-250 is a splendid round.
The correct answer to your inquiry is: go with the 204 Ruger - put PLENTY of scope power on it, hang on and have a performance ball!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Not sure I'd go that far VG...

I use 223,22-50,6mm rem in that order.I usually take the 223 but all three work well. I think you should go with the 223 since you already have some loading components, but this is just my opp.I don't have any first hand ex. with the 204 but I worry about it being too light.Like I said only my opp. but I don't think you can go wrong with a good 223.

GMoney: Greg, how so?
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

VG... I gotta say I'm with Gmoney here. The .204 has nothing on the .223 as far as I'm concerned. I bought one, it shot ok... it was loud as hell (24" pipe), it was finicky, and it didn't kill coyotes very well with any projectile I tried (I'm not a big fan of the .223 on coyotes either). I also found that for all practical purposes the .223 shot nearly as flat, and gave a better splat effect on chucks and crows (with the 40 & 50 grainers). I guess when you read ballistics tables it's got the .223 beat up and down the block. But in the field I don't see how it performs better... hey, that's just me. And you've got to wonder about anyone that owns 18 varmint rifles chambered for rounds that get their a$$es kicked by a .243 running 55s all day long. ~josh

I'll get back on this one when I get a chance VG and explain myself...
Later tonight maybe...

VG,

I just disagree with your thoughts regarding .204 performance with the .223 and the .22-250. First, it depends on what "performance" you want. Sure the .204 is flatter and may even be quicker with similar bullet weights (40 vs. 40) but as far as a superior killing round that is hard to determine.

The .223 offers you much better selection of killing bullets from prairie dogs to coyotes to deer. This could mean the .223 could "kill better". So lethality is questionable at best. A 40 grain Vmax at 3850 in .204 vs. a 40 Vmax at 3700 from a .223 pretty much is pretty lethal.

Regarding trajectory the .204 wins.

Recoil arguement is pretty negligable as both are pretty slight.

For all around usage you also say the .204 is better than the .22-250. Regarding lethality there is no question the -250 gets the nod across the board here. I have not run tables on trajectory but I imagine they are pretty close here as well. The .204 has it in the recoil dept.

I am a huge lover of the .204 as it has benefits over both above cartridges that some deem important. That said, the .204 has some qualities that are inferior to the other 2 that some people deem more important.

This is all I was saying...

If I was a betting man, I bet a much better constructed bullet in .20 caliber will be upon us soon...

A 38-42 grain Accubond or TSX or something similar would sell like hotcakes. But then of course that would be advocating using these bullets on game needed for bullets to hold together better (stuff bigger than coyotes I imagine) and ?I'm not sure the bullet companies will want to do this quite yet...

Just some rambling thoughts on this Tuesday evening...

From what I have read and heard from shooters the 204 is a barrel burner.

Cheers

stormbringer - only if the shooter is abusing the barrel with heat - just like any other rifle.

Get one of each and after a year get rid of the ones you don't like. Seriously, any of them will work but the .223 makes the most sense from my perspective. You've already got dies, even with the war going on brass availability for eastern varmint hunting is not a big issue. If you shoot a lot powder adds up as well. There's probably been more load refinement done for the .223 than for any cartridge in history and it's a cartridge for which powders have been specifically developed. I've got .22CF's from the .222 to the Swift, but it's the .223's that make it out of the safe on a regular basis.

X2, Monashee

Go with the 204. You won't regret it. I finally did and have had so much fun with this caliber that I went out and bought another one. I plan on picking up another one this summer. They are just plain and simply more efficient than the 22 cal's. New bullet selections keep coming out and I forsee some of the other bullet manufacturers getting on board.

Gube: I TOTALLY agree with you!
I have been so amazed and have become so enthralled and impressed with the 204 Ruger and its outstanding performance and wonderful qualities that I now have and shoot 4 of them!

Stormbringer: I have 4 Varminters in caliber 204 Ruger and I know MANY shooters who have them (one of my friends has 6 of them now!) and none of them have mentioned any "rapid" barrel wear or sudden and "to soon" losses in accuracy.
Indeed one of the MANY reasons I adore the 204 Ruger cartridge is because in relation to its speed, performance and outstanding trajectory vs. barrel heating - this cartridge produces the least barrel heat of ANY comparable "traditional" caliber (22-250, 220 Swift, 240 Weatherby etc etc etc!) I know of.
Granted ONE of the reasons I own 4 Rifles in caliber 204 Ruger is exactly so I can spread the shooting around and "save" their wonderfully accurate barrels for as long as possible!
In Colony Varmint situations I simply "trade Rifles" when a barrel starts to warm up.
You may have heard this "rumor" as I don't hear everything - but I do read "a lot" and I have not "read" anywhere that the 204 Ruger is a barrel burner - I am sure I would have remembered that.
I can not state for certain that the 204 Ruger is NOT a "barrel burner" because I do not have a large number of rounds down ANY of my barrels as yet.
But I do have a Siebert Bore Inspection Tool and it gives me a good look at the leades of the rifling in my 204 barrels and I see no significant or unusual wear as yet in any of them.
I tend to hesitate to go along with your poting in this regard.
I will get back to you in a couple of years with more definitive first hand observations on the 204 Ruger and barrel wear.
Long live the 204 Ruger!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

To be honest- I don't like this statment. Yes the 22-250 is faster. But with most "factory" rifles your limited to 1-12 or 1-14 twist. Which in turn limits the bullet weight you have to choose from since most .223s are supplied with 1-9" tubes. So you have a much wider choice of ammo. I'm not putting down the 250. Its one of my fav. rounds. But anything closer than 300-350yrds. You've just got over kill. So in this case- the .223 is the "bigger" hammer and the 22-250 is the faster.

223, or jump up to the real varmint caliber, 243--it spanks them all

You'll never regret owning a faster twist 223; you may very well be selling off any of the other calibers.

ruger438,

I have owned a .22-250, a .220 Swift, and currently have a .223 in TC and a .204 Ruger.

The 250 and the Swift were a whole lot of fun for long-range prairie dog and jackrabbit shooting, but they make a lot of noise. I shot the barrels out of both, finally, and sold the .22-250. I still have the Swift, a Ruger 77V, and am considering rebarrelling it.
My favorite of all of them is definitely the .204. Accurate as can be, less noise, no recoil, and longer barrel life.
I have taken some tough old jackrabbits with it, out to 300 yards. No crawlers!!!!
It's really cool to be able to see the results of your shot, due to lack of recoil.

In the my arsenal of varmint calibers, the list includes 243, 223 AI (two of them!), 223 (two of them), 204 Ruger (two of them), & 17 Remington.

I prefer to shoot the 204's, 223's, & 223 AI's. Due to the cost of reloading, the 223 AI's come out of the safe more often. I can buy 2000 bullets for the 223's for less than $140. Last year, they were $115/2000.

The amount of powder used in the AI's is almost identical to what I use in the 204. Unfortunately, from the sheer cost of metal, the 223 AI's will be on varmint duty this year.

I have also purchased another Savage FV12 with a 1:9 twist barrel, which will soon be an AI as well.

Montana model 1999 in 22-250. First few shots from my new rifle.

Not impressed with the 204 yet. 22-250 loud and more recoil. 223 is the only way to go. The load I have for the 223 beats any load I have for the 250 or the 204. Unless you want to shoot heavy bullets the 223 really performs. Try Viht N120 behind a 40gr Vmax and you'll never look back. I use 24 grains and get between 3900 and 4200fps. Also very accurate. This load has worked in several rifles including Weatherby, Tikka, Ruger, Remington and Howa. I know this velocity seems extreme but have had no problems.

204 a barrel burner? 25-26 grains is about it for most powders. A 22-250 runs 38gr quite often. Of course powder type varies.

I shot prairie dogs with my 204 and 22-250 last spring. While I did find that the 50gr 22's had a bit more impact, the barrel warmed up quickly AND I did not get to watch the events unfold like I coud with the 204. The 250 was a heavy barreled Howa much heavier than my Sako 204.

In all aspects I consider the .223 and .204 equal on "killing". Both have their positives and negatives. .223 has more buller options and better constructions for bigger stuff and heavier options, etc. .204 flies flatter, no recoil, etc.

.22-250 trumps them both for "killing" but on paper and for killing, I consider them a wash.

go black.... your all done guessin'!


woofer

Most of my varminting has been shootin' California ground squirrels, aka digger squirrels, in southwest Oregon, but I have shot some bigger varmints.

I've owned a couple of .223s, worn out 2 .22-250s to the points the bullets keyholed, and I'm on my 3rd .204.

I assume your woodchucks are about the same size as our rock chucks. I shot a few chucks with one of those .22-250s and I was not too impressed. Seemed like if I took a body shot, I didn't find the chuck. Head shots turned that end into red mist, but body shots they seemed to absorb and still be able to fall off the log and get underground before expiring. Now, that was in the days prior to polymer tipped bullets, and those change the game somewhat.

I'd recommend the .22-250 over the other two since that's what I'd pick if I were choosing myself. Honestly, if I were buying a gun for 'chucks and it had to be a .22 cal, I'd go with the .220 Swift, but I'd really rather have .243, 6mm, .257 Roberts, or .25-'06.

Tom

Some good reading:

http://www.6mmbr.com/20Caliber.html

Wow,
It's been awhile since I checked here, and there has been a lot of posts since I started the thread.
The old thinker has been working on this and I have come to the following conclusions, right or wrong:

1. the 17hmr and 22wmr will stay my "go-to" ground hog guns. I am farming in an increasingly developed area and also I like the quiet report for my own ears too. And within range limits, they just plain work.

2. Since I started this thread the Pennsylvania game commission has brought up the idea of making my area shotgun and rim fires only, so maybe I shouldn't spend on another center fire for only a years worth of groundhog shooting.(or I could sell the farm and move to Missouri, its been on my mind, @#*! houses, but thats another topic).

3. I have been working more with my 257 Roberts and 75 grain v max loads and like what I'm seeing. I figure thats going to hit harder than any .20 or .22 center fire anyway, although maybe not shoot quit as flat. But thats one gun that probably won't ride around in the tractor, its my "pretty" gun, but I'll hunt with it.

I did get a 223 barrel for my contender so we will see how that works but that will probably be a relatively short range proposition in a 10" barrel, but not all my tractors have cabs so it will be easier to keep handy than a rifle. And trading barrels on that gun is fun in itself, so next year I can change

So I guess I didn't take any of your advice mainly due to possible upcoming law changes, but it was a lot of fun to read and I appreciate all the advice.
Oh, and friends around here mostly were trying to get me to go with a 22-250.

MAN ID GO EITH THE 223 JUST THE FACT ITS MUCH CHEAPER TO SHOT LOT LESS RECOIL THAN THE 22-250 AND IT GOOD 4 NETHING OUT TO 450 YARDS ( I'VE SHOT GROUNDS THAT FAR AWAY) BUT IT CAN BE USED OUT TO 500 YARDS I HERE TOO IT JUST DEPENDS HOW WELL U GET TO KNOW YOUR GUN BUT THE 223 IS WHT ID GO WITH